Comrade_Joe wrote:This was the main argument around "the Socialism in one country", if USSR would support actively revolutions outside of it or not. What is the confusion here?

There isn't any confusion. I merely stated that the debate regarding whether or not socialism could be developed and sustained within an isolated country predated the entire conflict between Stalin and Trotsky on the issue of Socialism in One Country and the theory of permanent revolution.

It can be develop on a national scale only to a certain stage as USSR showed. If you don't have socialist revolutions outside the country the revolution will never advance from this stage because you still have a bourgeoisie control in the rest of the World. If you remain isolated you will stagnate at some point but the initial construction of the socialist state is always on a national scale. Then to develop, it needs to be accompanied by other revolutions to move on the next stage of development of the revolutionary process.

Have I ever suggested otherwise?

I will tell you exactly the same thing that i said in my previous post: If the abolition of the state is a goal to achieve the communist stage, how cannot the abolition of the nation-states be too? None of you answered me yet.

No, it became a "goal" to certain cosmopolitans. To Marx and Engels, it was a mere hypothesis. What they thought might occur given the dynamics they believed communism would feature. They never stated it was a "goal," so such agendas cannot be said to be 'Marxist.'

As for your question, it is inaccurate to consider states and nations synonymous entities. Nations existed prior to the formation of states and will continue to exist should the dissolution of the state ever occur. Having said that, I cannot foresee a point wherein governance would ever become unnecessary. Governance will become far more decentralized within the form of socialism I favor, but economic and political coordination, and law enforcement, are necessary for any society to function humanely. I also reject the feasibility of communism as defined by advocates of "free access." Without a measured claim on the social product, inefficiency might ensue; and without a system of economic planning, the social opportunity costs of production cannot be calculated. Nevertheless, I believe a form of communism will eventually arise as a result of automation overtaking the production of goods and (most) services.

The main international bound of the bourgeoisie is in the state international relations. The feudalistic old order also had international bounds, that is why an alliance of states (Holly Alliance) was formed to smash every bourgeoisie revolution.

What is your point, exactly? I was addressing the psychological and economic factors responsible for capitalism homogenizing the world and why Marx was incorrect in assuming such would continue to occur in socialism. Of course bourgeois states enter into geopolitical alliances, so too will socialist nations. That's irrelevant to what I was discussing.

But how you maintain national boundaries once the state withers away? You are talking about the communist phase (late one), right?

I'm referring to any conceivable organization of the substructure of society, including communism. National boundaries will be maintained by the people collectively deciding to retain borders and rules for immigration.

I find confusing this: how you conceal your loyalty to the nation with the loyalty to your class? What happens if the interests of both collides?

I already answered all of these questions when I wrote: "Left-wing nationalists are not reactionary chauvinists. Of course we oppose skirmishes between bourgeois states, just as we oppose the acts of imperialism which our nations engage in." We are not loyal to bourgeois states, not even the ones we reside in. Don't confuse left-wing nationalism with social patriotism. Our nationalism is an acknowledgement of the national sentiments which exist within the working class, and a theory of how those sentiments might express themselves after the dictatorship of capital has been overthrow.

Another thing: how will export and support revolutions outside your country by respecting this: "The maintenance of national integrity and independence"?

Foreign socialist and communist movements would be supported with political assistance and, if conditions are appropriate, military aid.

I have clearly a definition of nationalism that doesn't combine with socialism.

Coming to such a conclusion leads me to believe that you lack the ability to comprehend basic English.

Without a world wide revolution it's impossible to achieve anything beyond what we witnessed with the socialist experiments in the XX Century. And there is also a contradiction regarding the latter phase of communism as I explained to you above.

See above.

I thought that left-wing nationalists defended the construction of socialism in one country and the absence of any attempt to export socialists revolution outside of it. Basically, I thought that the internationalist component (World Revolution) of the Marxist theory was relegated to a minor issue by the left-wing nationalists.

Then you were profoundly mistaken.

Yes, but it happen and that was my point.

It was an irrelevant point. If anything, it magnifies the extent to which nationality animates the working class even under conditions of socialism. It's a vindication of the left-wing nationalist hypothesis.

Last edited by Celtiberian on Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:13 am; edited 2 times in total

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."—J. B. S. Haldane

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."—Mikhail Bakunin

Pantheon Rising wrote:But where do you get the idea that people will ever just decide to give up their national identities? It is a necessary part of human nature and identity simply due to our diversity as a species. I, personally, will always remain 100% opposed to the idea of giving up my national identity and in fact I see the ethnocultural bonds that bring people together to be all the more helpful in the creation of a society based on mutual aid and cooperation.

My opinion is that with the disappearance of the state, boundaries, all the other international barriers and the strengthened of international boundaries between people of different cultures the national/patriotic feeling will probably cease to exist gradually, not because anyone imposed it.

The national state could theoretically be abolished without getting rid of the concept of the nation. A nation is simply a group of people who identify with each other on the basis of a common culture, ethnicity, and language while the State is primarily an instrument through which these people govern themselves. One can still have a nation without a State.

I always talked about national-states. If you see in my firsts posts I talked about nation-states from the very beginning. Try not to make up things here.

In a first phase it is plausible that some groups might distinguish from another through its common bounds such as the culture but as i said above that common bounds will gradually disappearing

I don't think the problem lies in me not knowing anything about Marxism, but rather you not knowing anything outside of Marxism.

Why, did you make me a test knowledge to know what i know outside Marxism? You are the one with the misconceptions.

Self-determination - (noun)

1. Determination of one's own fate or course of action without compulsion; free will.2. Freedom of the people of a given area to determine their own political status; independence

All the lower classes today are oppressed so why would you be opposed to self determination for people in the first world after the revolution?

I just gave you my definition of self-determination without consulting the dictionary and matches with the definition that you provided from one. Thank you for the confirmation. I didn't understand your question. Why I would oppose the self determination for people in the first world? What do you mean?

Okay, buddy. The feudalistic and bourgeois classes have been the most cosmopolitan classes history has ever seen. Whether it is noble families marrying off their offspring to the families of other nations for political favors or a traitorous bourgeoisie moving capital around the globe in the name of profit, only the workers and peasants have remained national.

Can you show me where the hell in Marxist-Leninist doctrine it says "all patriotic and national sentiments are bad"?

Lenin:

"To the bourgeoisie, however, the demand for national equality very often amounts in practice to advocating national exclusiveness and chauvinism; they very often couple it with advocacy of the division and estrangement of nations. This is absolutely incompatible with proletarian internationalism, which advocates, not only closer relations between nations, but the amalgamation of the workers of all nationalities in a given state in united proletarian organisations. That is why Marxists emphatically condemn so-called “cultural-national autonomy”, i. e., the idea that educational affairs should be taken out of the hands of the state and transferred to the respective nationalities. This plan means that in questions of “national culture” educational affairs are to be split up in national associations according to the nationalities in the given state federation, each with its own separate Diet, educational budgets, school boards, and educational institutions.

This is a plan of refined nationalism, which corrupts and divides the working class. To this plan (of the Bundists, liquidators and Narodniks, i. e., of the various petty-bourgeois groups), the Marxists contrapose the principle of complete equality of nations and languages and go to the extent of denying the necessity of an official language; at the same time they advocate the closest possible relations between the nations, uniform state institutions for all nations, uniform school boards, a uniform education policy (secular education!) and the unity of the workers of the different nations in the struggle against the nationalism."

Celtiberian wrote:No, it became a "goal" to certain cosmopolitans. To Marx and Engels, it was a mere hypothesis. What they thought might occur given the dynamics they believed communism would feature. They never stated it was a "goal," so such agendas cannot be said to be 'Marxist.'

Wrong. If the end of exploitation is an Marxist goal than the end of the state is also because the exploitation only ends when the state ends. As long as you have a state you have exploitation. This is a Marxist premise. You cannot disassociate one from another.

As for your question, it is inaccurate to consider states and nations synonymous entities. Nations existed prior to the formation of states and will continue to exist should the dissolution of the state ever occur. Having said that, I cannot foresee a point wherein governance would ever become unnecessary. Governance will become far more decentralized within the form of socialism I favor, but economic and political coordination, and law enforcement, are necessary for any society to function humanely. I also reject the feasibility of communism as defined by advocates of "free access." Without a measured claim on the social product, inefficiency might ensue; and without a system of economic planning, the social opportunity costs of production cannot be calculated. Nevertheless, I believe a form of communism will eventually arise as a result of automation overtaking the production of goods and (most) services.

There is nothing wrong in what I've said. I always talked about Nation-States. You can see it from the very beginning.

What is your point, exactly? I was addressing the psychological and economic factors responsible for capitalism homogenizing the world and why Marx was incorrect in assuming such would continue to occur in socialism. Of course bourgeois states enter into geopolitical alliances, so too will socialist nations. That's irrelevant to what I was discussing.

You were relativizing the bourgeoisie international dimension. I think you didn't understand my point initially. The class struggle against bourgeoisie is on an international scale and not national. That was my point. If you don't defeat the bourgeoisie all over the world you won't be able to have a fully successful socialist revolution ready to advance for the next stage.

I'm referring to any conceivable organization of the substructure of society, including communism. National boundaries will be maintained by the people collectively deciding to retain borders and rules for immigration.

Once again. How you do it without a state, an army, police? How you will impose the rules for immigration?

I already answered all of these questions when I wrote: "Left-wing nationalists are not reactionary chauvinists. Of course we oppose skirmishes between bourgeois states, just as we oppose the acts of imperialism which our nations engage in." We are not loyal to bourgeois states, not even the ones we reside in. Don't confuse left-wing nationalism with social patriotism. Our nationalism is an acknowledgement of the national sentiments which exist within the working class, and a theory of how those sentiments might express themselves after the dictatorship of capital has been overthrow.

But you did not respond my question. Which one of the loyalties comes first? If you have to chose between one of them which one would you chose? What comes first: nation or class? I am not talking about loyalty to bourgeoisie states but to proletarian ones.

Foreign socialist and communist movements would be supported with political assistance and, if conditions are appropriate, military aid.

So you abdicate of one of your nationalist premises: "maintenance of national integrity" because you would be intervening in the national integrity of another country. What if the communist movement don't have the majority of the people support there?

Coming to such a conclusion leads me to believe that you lack the ability to comprehend basic English.

This was the kind of crap that I was referring to. Cheap talk when the argumentation is lacking. The most impressive thing is that the Moderator of this forum advised me to stop debating because I was removed from the discussion. Ban if you want but this situation is hilarious and pretty ridiculous on your behalf.

It was an irrelevant point. If anything, it magnifies the extent to which nationality animates the working class even under conditions of socialism. It's a vindication of the left-wing nationalist hypothesis.

Wrong again. Who told you that was a working class nationalistic feeling? On the contrary. You didn't see a working class domination in the Baltics after the independence, did you? Unless that you're admitting that your definition of nationalism do not differs from the bourgeoisie one. You also clearly didn't see my discussion with the other user. He was asking me to prove it and I did it.

Comrade_Joe wrote:Wrong. If the end of exploitation is an Marxist goal than the end of the state is also because the exploitation only ends when the state ends.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand what exploitation, in the Marxian sense of the term, actually means. Exploitation denotes the bourgeois appropriation of surplus labor. It is a social theft which the capitalist mode of production enables. It has nothing whatever to do with the state, except insofar as the state legally recognizes wage labor as being a legitimate practice. The state enforcement of socialist property norms and the abolition of bourgeois social relations are the means by which exploitation will be abolished (anarchists obviously have very different ideas regarding that, which I'll let them explain). So, I really don't know where you got the idea that the state in inherently exploitative.

Moreover, if you can find a single quote from Marx or Engels in which they unambiguously state that the dissolution of nations is a "goal" or "demand" which socialists must achieve—as opposed to the outcome of a dialectical process—I will capitulate to your position.

As long as you have a state you have exploitation. This is a Marxist premise. You cannot disassociate one from another.

See above.

There is nothing wrong in what I've said. I always talked about Nation-States. You can see it from the very beginning.

You asked a question and I answered it. Those who believe that nations (not nation-states) will simply wither away with the ascent of socialism or communism are mistaken. Nations do not spontaneously enter into transformative relations with one another, and changing the mode of production is not going to alter that reality. Mutual aid will occur, ethnocultural amalgamating will not.

You may have been referring to nation-states throughout this thread, but you've also claimed that "the national/patriotic feeling will probably cease to exist gradually." To that end, you are directly referring to nations, not states.

You were relativizing the bourgeoisie international dimension.

Absolutely not. I simply focused on different aspects of it.

I think you didn't understand my point initially. The class struggle against bourgeoisie is on an international scale and not national.

I don't need you to lecture me on that subject, as it's something I've understood quite well for years. (Browse through my post history if you doubt that.)

Once again. How you do it without a state, an army, police? How you will impose the rules for immigration?

Armed militias of workers could enforce border laws, though I cannot conceive of any circumstance in which it would be reasonable to completely abolish the army or police. Scaling them back is practical, but that is about the extent of it. Unless you're under the impression that every single human being can be socialized into behaving as perfect little angels, you must realize that crime is going to occur even under the most ideal settings. The threat of counterrevolution will also persist, as all it requires is one egotistical individual with followers to rebuild capitalism.

Society will always have laws and a method by which to enforce them. Immigration will be handled according how the people democratically choose to structure those laws.

But you did not respond my question. Which one of the loyalties comes first? If you have to chose between one of them which one would you chose? What comes first: nation or class? I am not talking about loyalty to bourgeoisie states but to proletarian ones.

Loyalty invariably extends to one's own people first (i.e., their national proletarian compatriots), then to the rest of their social class. It's utterly utopian to think otherwise. Do you honestly believe that citizens in a hypothetical Portuguese socialist commonwealth would feel the exact same solidarity with, say, Dominican workers, as they do for each other? Socialist internationalism is a method utilized to secure socialism domestically and to ensure mutual respect between nations; it isn't some doctrine of universal love.

So you abdicate of one of your nationalist premises: "maintenance of national integrity" because you would be intervening in the national integrity of another country.

I would phrase it as a "maintenance of national integrity" between socialist nations. And even if a socialist nation were to assist in another country's revolution, it wouldn't be as if it was threatening their right to autonomy following the revolution.

What if the communist movement don't have the majority of the people support there?

It would be imprudent to lend military assistance in such a context. Other forms of support should be provided instead.

Wrong again. Who told you that was a working class nationalistic feeling? On the contrary. You didn't see a working class domination in the Baltics after the independence, did you?

If large segments of the working class didn't agree with what the separatists were arguing, they wouldn't have amassed the support required for nationalism to be of any concern.

Unless that you're admitting that your definition of nationalism do not differs from the bourgeoisie one.

Nationalism is an endogenous sentiment which can be utilized for either progressive or reactionary purposes. In itself, it's benign and somewhat apolitical. What I was arguing was that, in Eastern Europe, reactionaries took advantage of the Soviet Union's repressive policies toward nationalities and used it against them. Despite living under state socialism, segments of the working class were mobilized to rebel against the states which provided them with an existence under socialism simply because they believed they lacked national autonomy. Again, this demonstrate how profound national identity can be.

As you well know, left-wing nationalism shares nothing in common with bourgeois nationalism.

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."—J. B. S. Haldane

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."—Mikhail Bakunin

Celtiberian wrote:I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand what exploitation, in the Marxian sense of the term, actually means. Exploitation denotes the bourgeois appropriation of surplus labor. It is a social theft which the capitalist mode of production enables. It has nothing whatever to do with the state, except insofar as the state legally recognizes wage labor as being a legitimate practice. The state enforcement of socialist property norms and the abolition of bourgeois social relations are the means by which exploitation will be abolished (anarchists obviously have very different ideas regarding that, which I'll let them explain). So, I really don't know where you got the idea that the state in inherently exploitative.

Dude, this is very basic Marxism. I'm very surprised with your answer. Have you ever read Lenin's work, The State and Revolution? There is a sub-chapter with this title: The State: an Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class. I'll give you some quotation: "Because the state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose, at the same time, in the midst of the conflict of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class....”

Throughout history, as Lenin says, the state has been "an instrument for the exploitation of the oppressed class."

And not ceases to be after a socialist revolution: "And from it follows that the “special coercive force” for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a “special coercive force” for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat)"

Apart from this and still regarding the surplus values, in socialism surplus value is still taken but reinvested in the People's State. As long as you have a state you have exploitation but not a capitalist/private one. You were completely "caught" in this one.

Moreover, if you can find a single quote from Marx or Engels in which they unambiguously state that the dissolution of nations is a "goal" or "demand" which socialists must achieve—as opposed to the outcome of a dialectical process—I will capitulate to your position.

I answered you above. If you consider the state as an instrument of exploitation as Lenin and Engels did than its abolition is a goal of socialism. REMEMBER once again that i talked about nation-states. Don't try to make up things around here.

You asked a question and I answered it. Those who believe that nations (not nation-states) will simply wither away with the ascent of socialism or communism are mistaken. Nations do not spontaneously enter into transformative relations with one another, and changing the mode of production is not going to alter that reality. Mutual aid will occur, ethnocultural amalgamating will not.

Just to prove how right i was in this one you were talking about borders and immigration rules. Nations without a state don't have neither borders or immigration policy.

You may have been referring to nation-states throughout this thread, but you've also claimed that "the national/patriotic feeling will probably cease to exist gradually." To that end, you are directly referring to nations, not states.

It is a tricky thing to do not to quote the whole phrase but we both know what I said.

Nationalism – the idea that the nation-state is the best form of political community and that a nation should have its own self-governing state

If the state ceases to exist it is predictably that national/patriotic feelings will probably cease to exists.

Absolutely not. I simply focused on different aspects of it.

Limiting the bourgeoisie international influence to "travel abroad in order to make connections with the bourgeoisie of foreign lands travel abroad" seems to me relativizing the complex reality of it.

Armed militias of workers could enforce border laws, though I cannot conceive of any circumstance in which it would be reasonable to completely abolish the army or police. Scaling them back is practical, but that is about the extent of it. Unless you're under the impression that every single human being can be socialized into behaving as perfect little angels, you must realize that crime is going to occur even under the most ideal settings. The threat of counterrevolution will also persist, as all it requires is one egotistical individual with followers to rebuild capitalism.

Society will always have laws and a method by which to enforce them. Immigration will be handled according how the people democratically choose to structure those laws.

You completely missed my point. I was talking about the latter stage of communism when there is no state. You need the state to enforce laws. Seems that you don't have any reasonable explanation to fit in the marxist theory. The later stage of communism wasn't proposed by me but by Marx and Lenin.

Also, your immigration perspective seems to be reactionary. Why would be the necessity of immigration policies after socialism triumphed all over the world? Aren't your national feeling different from the bourgeoisie one? You know that Immigration is related to the class struggle, don't you? And that immigration policies are used as a weapon by the bourgeoisie in the class struggle? Why would you need an immigration policy between socialist states? It seems that you are digging a hole for you here.

Loyalty invariably extends to one's own people first (i.e., their national proletarian compatriots), then to the rest of their social class. It's utterly utopian to think otherwise. Do you honestly believe that citizens in a hypothetical Portuguese socialist commonwealth would feel the exact same solidarity with, say, Dominican workers, as they do for each other? Socialist internationalism is a method utilized to secure socialism domestically and to ensure mutual respect between nations; it isn't some doctrine of universal love.

Yes i do, after a successful world wide socialist revolution and the end of nation-states. This is why your ideology is so much confuse. Here is where it lies its contradictions. Marx said "Workers have no country" and "Workers from all nations united" for a reason. Your way of interpreting things will lead to conflicts between proletarians states and therefore your national interpretation is not different from the bourgeoisie one. That is not Marxism.

I would phrase it as a "maintenance of national integrity" between socialist nations. And even if a socialist nation were to assist in another country's revolution, it wouldn't be as if it was threatening their right to autonomy following the revolution.

But you would be interfering in that autonomy, won't you? At least as long as the intervention occurred.

If large segments of the working class didn't agree with what the separatists were arguing, they wouldn't have amassed the support required for nationalism to be of any concern.

You missed my point once again. I asked why you think that the nationalist feeling that led to the independence of the Baltic had something to do with the nationalism that you defend? You weren't the one defending that the bourgeoisie nationalism was different from yours? That is why I stated: "Unless that you're admitting that your definition of nationalism do not differs from the bourgeoisie one"

Nationalism is an endogenous sentiment which can be utilized for either progressive or reactionary purposes. In itself, it's benign and somewhat apolitical. What I was arguing was that, in Eastern Europe, reactionaries took advantage of the Soviet Union's repressive policies toward nationalities and used it against them. Despite living under state socialism, segments of the working class were mobilized to rebel against the states which provided them with an existence under socialism simply because they believed they lacked national autonomy. Again, this demonstrate how profound national identity can be.

As you well know, left-wing nationalism shares nothing in common with bourgeois nationalism.

The national identity is also present in the self-determination struggle and I support self-determination so I really don't understand why you want to make a point here. I never denied the significance of national identity.

Rev Scare wrote:Joe, this is not RevLeft. You are completely removed from the discussion, following your own tangential and irrelevant conclusions based upon flawed premises. Articulate your thoughts and try again, or don't bother.

Dude, if you want to ban me because of my positions go ahead and do it. Do you think I care? Just don't try to hide your true positions behind a somewhat impartial moderator point of view. Is the second time some administrator in this forum advises me to reconsider my presence in the forum and both in the same thread. I will leave it, don't worry. I just didn't realize that this forum was so tendentious and is not by chance that your intervention came when I started to go deeply inside the holes of your theory which is a whole bunch of contradictory elements.

Comrade_Joe wrote:Dude, if you want to ban me because of my positions go ahead and do it. Do you think I care? Just don't try to hide your true positions behind a somewhat impartial moderator point of view. Is the second time some administrator in this forum advises me to reconsider my presence in the forum and both in the same thread. I will leave it, don't worry. I just didn't realize that this forum was so tendentious and is not by chance that your intervention came when I started to go deeply inside the holes of your theory which is a whole bunch of contradictory elements.

Our moderator, Rev Scare, did not threaten to ban you. He was merely offering a criticism of your contributions to this thread thus far. The protocol for bannings and restrictions can be found here. As long as you follow the forum's guidelines, you will not be banned or restricted.

_________________

De Omnibus Dubitandum

"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."-Friedrich Engels

Your last message has been removed, due to its subversive character. This forum is not (and was never intended to be) a democracy. (No socialist internet forum that I am aware of is structured in a democratic fashion.) We have established guidelines and protocols here, in order to maintain its integrity.

You are welcome to continue posting here, as long as your contributions do not violate the guidelines you have been presented with.

_________________

De Omnibus Dubitandum

"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."-Friedrich Engels

Comrade_Joe wrote:Dude, if you want to ban me because of my positions go ahead and do it. Do you think I care? Just don't try to hide your true positions behind a somewhat impartial moderator point of view. Is the second time some administrator in this forum advises me to reconsider my presence in the forum and both in the same thread. I will leave it, don't worry. I just didn't realize that this forum was so tendentious and is not by chance that your intervention came when I started to go deeply inside the holes of your theory which is a whole bunch of contradictory elements.

We are not "tendentious," but you are criticizing (poorly) a fundamental position of this forum, left-wing nationalism. Cosmopolitanism has no place here outside of the designated area in the Opposing Views section.

_________________"Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common."Karl Marx

Comrade_Joe wrote:Dude, this is very basic Marxism. I'm very surprised with your answer. Have you ever read Lenin's work, The State and Revolution? There is a sub-chapter with this title: The State: an Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class. I'll give you some quotation: "Because the state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose, at the same time, in the midst of the conflict of these classes, it is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class....”

The state, as the chapter title itself acknowledges, is an instrument. Of course it initially arose "from the need to hold class antagonisms in check," but, in itself, it is nothing more than a tool. It is not inherently exploitative—that depends entirely on the manner by which it is organized. Governance is indispensable, as rules have to be established and enforced for society to function. Neither socialism nor communism will render that fact obsolete, sorry. Even anarchists propose structures of governance (e.g., federations of freely associated producers), they just happen to be slightly more decentralized than what I think is practical.

Apart from this and still regarding the surplus values, in socialism surplus value is still taken but reinvested in the People's State. As long as you have a state you have exploitation but not a capitalist/private one. You were completely "caught" in this one.

Hardly. Short of "free access" communism—which is simply not viable—no mode of production can or should attempt to provide workers with the undiminished proceeds of their labor. In order for socialism to even operate, laws on social property need to be enforced, and that requires the employment of unproductive public servants. To live in a truly humane society, provisions also must be provided to the infirm, health care and education need to be be provided on the basis of need, etc. The only way in which this could be argued to be "exploitative" would be if such policies were mandated by unaccountable state officials, as opposed to the democratic decree of the masses.

The bourgeoisie are an unproductive, unnecessary, and parasitical social class; but labor, while the primary source, is not the sole source of value. As Karl Marx argued in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, "Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labour power." Therefore, it would be ridiculous to propose eliminating exploitation through remunerating individual workers with undiminished returns on their labor, especially since it is society which provides the necessary conditions for their labor to transpire in the first place: "If useful labour is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong to society—and only so much therefrom accrues to the individual worker as is not required to maintain the 'condition' of labour, society" [Marx quoted in Hollander, Samuel. The Economics of Karl Marx: Analysis and Application, p. 391.]. In other words, state taxation is not inherently exploitative. Capitalism, however, is exploitative because surplus labor is expropriated by the bourgeoisie as a result of the system's structural inequality (e.g., the proletariat and bourgeoisie are endowed with unequal assets, thereby enabling the bourgeoisie to dictate the terms of the wage-for-labor-time contract).

I answered you above. If you consider the state as an instrument of exploitation as Lenin and Engels did than its abolition is a goal of socialism.

Lenin and Engels were referring to the state as it has been organized historically, i.e., as an instrument to facilitate class dominance. And Friedrich Engels never considered the state "exploitative" in an absolute sense, nor did he ever claim anything to the effect that its abolition was a "goal." Try again.

REMEMBER once again that i talked about nation-states. Don't try to make up things around here.

Explicitly you haven't, but implicitly you certainly have been (as I demonstrated in my previous post).

Just to prove how right i was in this one you were talking about borders and immigration rules. Nations without a state don't have neither borders or immigration policy.

Nations without states have territories and rules for membership, which are essentially the same thing. Study the history of primitive communism, particularly how tribes were organized.

If the state ceases to exist it is predictably that national/patriotic feelings will probably cease to exists.

There is an immense difference between patriotism directed toward the state and national sentiments. The latter will emerge regardless of whether or not a state apparatus exists.

Limiting the bourgeoisie international influence to "travel abroad in order to make connections with the bourgeoisie of foreign lands travel abroad" seems to me relativizing the complex reality of it.

We were referring to how the dynamics of capitalism serve to minimize national distinctions. International military alliances, which you alluded to, do nothing to homogenize cultures. Moreover, treaties and alliances long precede capitalism. I, on the other hand, cited specific processes (free trade, advertising, bourgeois cosmopolitanism, immigration) which actually do contribute to ethnocultural homogenization.

You completely missed my point. I was talking about the latter stage of communism when there is no state.

And I explained to you why I don't believe the standard "higher stage of communism"—which certain Marxist-Leninsts aspire to—is politically or economically viable. A form of communism wherein people consume according to their needs will eventually emerge, but it will be when automation renders human production obsolete.

You need the state to enforce laws.

No, technically you don't. Tribal societies establish(ed) rules and enforce(d) them, and yet no one would argue they are state formations. A commune of anarchists can also establish and enforce laws.

Seems that you don't have any reasonable explanation to fit in the marxist theory. The later stage of communism wasn't proposed by me but by Marx and Lenin.

Marx wrote very little regarding how communism would function, as he considered it utopian speculation. He never intended for his few remarks on the matter to be taken as eternal truths or goals.

Also, your immigration perspective seems to be reactionary. Why would be the necessity of immigration policies after socialism triumphed all over the world?

I respect your views on what renders something "reactionary" no more than I respect your absurd views regarding what constitutes exploitation, which is to say, not at all.

Immigration policies will be drafted and enforced by the people themselves because maintaining national integrity matters to them. Many of the factors which compel people to emigrate from their homelands will be reduced under international socialism, but not entirely eliminated (due to reasons of uneven development, and so forth).

Aren't your national feeling different from the bourgeoisie one?

Obviously. But, apparently, you're incapable of comprehending the various ways in which they are.

You know that Immigration is related to the class struggle, don't you? And that immigration policies are used as a weapon by the bourgeoisie in the class struggle?

You don't say! It's not as if I've been discussing that fact for years now, or anything..

Why would you need an immigration policy between socialist states?

For the reasons outlined above.

Yes i do, after a successful world wide socialist revolution and the end of nation-states.

So, you don't believe that ethnocultural differences and sheer geographical distance will have any influence in reducing their sense of solidarity? If so, you must not have much experience dealing with actual human beings.

Marx said "Workers have no country" and "Workers from all nations united" for a reason.

He was urging the workers to understand their common interest in overthrowing the international dictatorship of capital. I fully acknowledge that necessity. However, I'm not delusional enough to believe that, once emancipated, all ethnocultural distinctions between the workers of the world will vanish as a result of communist social relations.

Your way of interpreting things will lead to conflicts between proletarians states and therefore your national interpretation is not different from the bourgeoisie one.

In what way would the maintenance of borders inevitably lead to "conflicts between proletarian states," pray tell? Clearly you don't understand the actual reasons (which are primarily economic) wars emerge, let alone why socialism will eliminate them.

That is not Marxism.

What isn't in keeping with the spirit of Marxism is clinging to every word penned by Marx, Engels, or Lenin with religious zeal. Your dogmatism makes a mockery out of Marxism.

But you would be interfering in that autonomy, won't you? At least as long as the intervention occurred.

Only to the extent of assisting in a proletarian revolution, which would be mutually beneficial to the revolutionaries and the socialist nation lending support.

I asked why you think that the nationalist feeling that led to the independence of the Baltic had something to do with the nationalism that you defend?

It should have been obvious to you that their reactionary nationalism shares nothing in common with the left-wing nationalism espoused by this forum.

I never denied the significance of national identity.

Of course you have. When you claim that national sentiments will wither away upon the demise of the state, or that solidarity can be exhibited equally between workers of vastly different backgrounds, you trivialize the significance of national identity.

Last edited by Celtiberian on Thu Apr 19, 2012 7:46 pm; edited 5 times in total

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."—J. B. S. Haldane

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."—Mikhail Bakunin

Comrade_Joe wrote:Apart from this and still regarding the surplus values, in socialism surplus value is still taken but reinvested in the People's State. As long as you have a state you have exploitation but not a capitalist/private one. You were completely "caught" in this one.

Is this supposed to represent some socialist notion of "taxation is theft"? Unbelievable.

_________________"Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common."Karl Marx

Celtiberian wrote:The state, as the chapter title itself acknowledges, is an instrument. Of course it initially arose "from the need to hold class antagonisms in check," but, in itself, it is nothing more than a tool. It is not inherently exploitative—that depends entirely on the manner by which it is organized. Governance is indispensable, as rules have to be established and enforced for society to function. Neither socialism nor communism will render that fact obsolete, sorry. Even anarchists propose structures of governance (e.g., federations of freely associated producers), they just happen to be slightly more decentralized than what I think is practical.

A tool of "exploitation"! What you didn't understand here? Besides, you already have admitted the exploitation in the other discussion. This doesn't mean that I say that this kind of exploitation is the same as the capitalist one but it's still exploitation but a preferable one because is done by the workers state. However, if we consider that socialism aims to destroy any means of exploitation the state is included.

Hardly. Short of "free access" communism—which is simply not viable—no mode of production can or should attempt to provide workers with the undiminished proceeds of their labor. In order for socialism to even operate, laws on social property need to be enforced, and that requires the employment of unproductive public servants. To live in a truly humane society, provisions also must be provided to the infirm, health care and education need to be be provided on the basis of need, etc. The only way in which this could be argued to be "exploitative" would be if such policies were mandated by unaccountable state officials, as opposed to the democratic decree of the masses.

The bourgeoisie are an unproductive, unnecessary, and parasitical social class; but labor, while the primary source, is not the sole source of value. As Karl Marx argued in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, "Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labour power." Therefore, it would be ridiculous to propose eliminating exploitation through remunerating individual workers with undiminished returns on their labor, especially since it is society which provides the necessary conditions for their labor to transpire in the first place: "If useful labour is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong to society—and only so much therefrom accrues to the individual worker as is not required to maintain the 'condition' of labour, society" [Marx quoted in Hollander, Samuel. The Economics of Karl Marx: Analysis and Application, p. 391.]. In other words, state taxation is not inherently exploitative. Capitalism, however, is exploitative because surplus labor is expropriated by the bourgeoisie as a result of the system's structural inequality (e.g., the proletariat and bourgeoisie are endowed with unequal assets, thereby enabling the bourgeoisie to dictate the terms of the wage-for-labor-time contract).

Yes it is exploitation but in another sense. You are very confused pal. First you admit that is another form of exploitation, than you say that no. See above and try to hold on to one position.

Lenin and Engels were referring to the state as it has been organized historically, i.e., as an instrument to facilitate class dominance. And Friedrich Engels never considered the state "exploitative" in an absolute sense, nor did he ever claim anything to the effect that its abolition was a "goal." Try again.

He didn't? Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State: "As the state arose from the need to keep class antagonisms in check, but also arose in the thick of the fight between the classes, it is normally the state of the most powerful, economically ruling class, which by its means becomes also the politically ruling class, and so acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. The ancient state was, above all, the state of the slave-owners for holding down the slaves, just as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is the instrument for exploiting wage-labor by capital."

How you achieve the latter phase of communism if the state doesn't disappears. It was not designed to be a goal to achieve the latter stage? Socialism has any goals for you at all?

But I'll give you another issue: oppression. It is not a socialism goal to end oppression? If the state is also an instrument of oppression how you will end oppression while you have a state?

Explicitly you haven't, but implicitly you certainly have been (as I demonstrated in my previous post).

I can implicitly say a lot of things...in your mind of course. What a cheap shot.

Nations without states have territories and rules for membership, which are essentially the same thing. Study the history of primitive communism, particularly how tribes were organized.

Are you comparing modern nations with tribes from primitive times? Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? Tribes had an immigration policy as you suggested? LOOOL

There is an immense difference between patriotism directed toward the state and national sentiments. The latter will emerge regardless of whether or not a state apparatus exists.

For me today they are both interconnected. The state is the material realization of a nation, once ceases to exist it is predictable the national and patriotic feelings will follow it after a certain time.

We were referring to how the dynamics of capitalism serve to minimize national distinctions. International military alliances, which you alluded to, do nothing to homogenize cultures. Moreover, treaties and alliances long precede capitalism. I, on the other hand, cited specific processes (free trade, advertising, bourgeois cosmopolitanism, immigration) which actually do contribute to ethnocultural homogenization.

LOL. And I was the one with a low understanding of english? When I ever talked about homogenizing cultures? You were the one referring to that, not me. I was talking about the bourgeoisie international dimension (international connections, international solidarity) which means its influence world wide but you seem to have some difficulties to understand it.

And I explained to you why I don't believe the standard "higher stage of communism"—which certain Marxist-Leninsts aspire to—is politically or economically viable. A form of communism wherein people consume according to their needs will eventually emerge, but it will be when automation renders human production obsolete.

If you don't believe it you're not Marxist. Period. One thing is not believing that we can arrive there tomorrow, other thing is saying that we will never arrive there.

No, technically you don't. Tribal societies establish(ed) rules and enforce(d) them, and yet no one would argue they are state formations. A commune of anarchists can also establish and enforce laws.

LOOOL. You have laws in tribal societies? I hope you are not comparing the laws that we have in modern society with tribal norms. Try not to be even more ridiculous. I never saw a commune of anarchists saw I can't tell neither you.

Marx wrote very little regarding how communism would function, as he considered it utopian speculation. He never intended for his few remarks on the matter to be taken as eternal truths or goals.

What you are doing is distorting Marxism as much as you can. Of course it is a long-term goal to achieve by stages. If you don't believe in the "whole" theory is because you're not a marxist. Sorry pal.

I respect your views on what renders something "reactionary" no more than I respect your absurd views regarding what constitutes exploitation, which is to say, not at all.

Immigration policies will be drafted and enforced by the people themselves because maintaining national integrity matters to them. Many of the factors which compel people to emigrate from their homelands will be reduced under international socialism, but not entirely eliminated (due to reasons of uneven development, and so forth).

You see, you have no answer to that. Your perspective is really reactionary. You just revealed yourself. HOLE in the theory.

Obviously. But, apparently, you're incapable of comprehending the various ways in which they are.

Perhaps because they aren't different at all.

You don't say! It's not as if I've been that fact for years now, or anything..

Sorry pal, but I've not been here for years neither I'm going to read all of what you have written about the subject. If you want to respond do it, don't expect me to read all your writing about it.

For the reasons outlined above.

It's not different from a bourgeoisie nationalist point of view. You only trade one name for another.

So, you don't believe that ethnocultural differences and sheer geographical distance will have any influence in reducing their sense of solidarity? If so, you must not have much experience dealing with actual human beings.

A neo-nazi could give me the same answer as you gave. That is why socialism is "internationalist" and not "nationalist".

So, Marx didn't have much experience with actual human beings. Otherwise, why he said: "Countries of all countries unite!"?

He was urging the workers to understand their common interest in overthrowing the international dictatorship of capital. I fully acknowledge that necessity. However, I'm not delusional enough to believe that, once emancipated, all ethnocultural distinctions between the workers of the world will vanish as a result of communist social relations.

So, now you're calling Marx a delusional? This is getting better.

In what way would the maintenance of borders inevitably lead to "conflicts between proletarian states," pray tell? Clearly you don't understand the actual reasons (which are primarily economic) wars emerge, let alone why socialism will eliminate them.

Dude, in a socialist state you still have economic interests, don't you? Incredible.

What isn't in keeping with the spirit of Marxism is clinging to every word penned by Marx, Engels, or Lenin with religious zeal. Your dogmatism makes a mockery out of Marxism.

You know why I am so zealous? Is because I don't want guys like you trying to distort Marxism like other people have done in the past with catastrophic consequences for people and socialism. How grateful I am for not having your ideological thought within my party. It would be a mess for the movement.

Of course you have. When you claim that national sentiments will wither away upon the demise of the state, or that solidarity can be exhibited equally between workers of vastly different backgrounds, you trivialize the significance of national identity.

I wanted to say that I never denied the significance of national identity [b]today while still exists nation-states, not after they whither away. You are always MISSING my point.

Rev Scare wrote:Is this supposed to represent some socialist notion of "taxation is theft"? Unbelievable.

Unbelievable is your interpretation of what I said. I never said that state exploitation is the same as a capitalist one since it's public, but is still exploitation. If your rosy-colored socialism world can't see it I'm sorry pal but that's reality.

Comrade_Joe wrote:A tool of "exploitation"! What you didn't understand here?

What you're apparently incapable of grasping is the simple fact that tools change character depending on what they're utilized for. A hammer, for example, can be used to build a house or murder someone. Just because governments were established to secure class privilege does not mean they serve no other function, or that they can't be made to serve other functions. We currently have laws which protect bourgeois property, but also laws which criminalize murder. Do you consider the latter to be equally "exploitative"? Do you honestly believe a time will arise when law enforcement is no longer necessary?

Besides, you already have admitted the exploitation in the other discussion.

Don't misrepresent what I wrote. I specifically said that state socialism—i.e., a dictatorship featuring state control of the means of production and distribution—is exploitative "insofar as economic plans fail to include the products and services the people actually want while nevertheless providing the nomenklatura with all of the luxuries they desire." That is precisely why I oppose state socialism, and am instead a proponent of revolutionary syndicalism (which is not exploitative in any sense of the term).

However, if we consider that socialism aims to destroy any means of exploitation the state is included.

Once again, the state is not inherently exploitative. Dictatorial (as opposed to democratically determined) taxation and economic planning designed and implemented by an autocratic elite are forms of exploitation which need not be practiced. And I defy you to explain how a state wherein the means of production and distribution are controlled directly by the working class, and in which the government operates democratically, is exploitative.

Yes it is exploitation but in another sense. You are very confused pal.

On the contrary, it is you who appears not to have understood what I was explaining (or even what exploitation, in the Marxian sense of the term, entails). You actually had the audacity to argue that, somehow, surplus value "reinvested in the People's State" is a form of exploitation.

First you admit that is another form of exploitation, than you say that no.

No such admission exists.

He didn't? Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State: "As the state arose from the need to keep class antagonisms in check, but also arose in the thick of the fight between the classes, it is normally the state of the most powerful, economically ruling class, which by its means becomes also the politically ruling class, and so acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. The ancient state was, above all, the state of the slave-owners for holding down the slaves, just as the feudal state was the organ of the nobility for holding down the peasant serfs and bondsmen, and the modern representative state is the instrument for exploiting wage-labor by capital."

Excuse me, but that was a positive statement, not a normative claim. Nowhere did Engels write that the state is inherently exploitative—meaning oppressive regardless of the manner by which it is organization—and therefore needs to be abolished. For the last time, he and Marx argued that states and nations would likely wither away as a result of the dialectical processes of history; which, while incorrect, was a far cry from declaring it a "goal," as you childishly do.

How you achieve the latter phase of communism if the state doesn't disappears. It was not designed to be a goal to achieve the latter stage? Socialism has any goals for you at all?

The higher stage of communism is not a "goal" to be "achieved," it either materializes or it doesn't. Anyone with a passing knowledge of scientific socialism understands this. I've explained why I feel communism, as it's typically described by Marxist-Leninists, could not function economically and would not generate cosmopolitanism as predicated. You've not refuted my arguments, except to claim that I'm "noT ah Marksist!!1!"—which is, of course, ironic coming from an individual who has demonstrated no knowledge of Marxian economics whatsoever. Had Marx and Engels studied the national question more thoroughly and further theorized how a post-capitalist economy would operate, I'm confident they would have amended some of their predictions regarding future events. But, alas, most of their lives were dedicated to uncovering capitalism's laws of motion.

But I'll give you another issue: oppression. It is not a socialism goal to end oppression? If the state is also an instrument of oppression how you will end oppression while you have a state?

States can be organized oppressively, but they can just as easily be organized so as to ensure freedom and justice for their citizenry. I don't know how many times you're going to force me to repeat myself before you're able to comprehend that basic point. The state providing you with education and health care is not an act of "oppression." The state enforcing bourgeois property laws, on the other hand, is oppressive. State oppression, or lack thereof, depends entirely on how the substructure and governing institutions of society are organized.

Are you comparing modern nations with tribes from primitive times? Do you know how ridiculous this sounds? Tribes had an immigration policy as you suggested?

What's "ridiculous" is your inability to understand analogies. Tribal territories and membership rules are analogous to modern conceptions of the nation and immigration laws. I'm perplexed as to why that's so difficult for you to process.

For me today they are both interconnected. The state is the material realization of a nation, once ceases to exist it is predictable the national and patriotic feelings will follow it after a certain time.

Patriotic sentiments as they currently exist will change, but the sentiments themselves will not dissolve. If they existed prior to the formation of nation-states, we have absolutely no reason to suspect they will completely cease to exist following the hypothetical withering away of the state.

And I was the one with a low understanding of english?

Correct, as your continued inability to comprehend my arguments verifies.

You were the one referring to that, not me.

Since you acknowledge that I was addressing a completely different topic, why on earth did you respond to it by discussing matters which I never raised to begin with?

I was talking about the bourgeoisie international dimension (international connections, international solidarity) which means its influence world wide but you seem to have some difficulties to understand it.

I've understood the international dimension and influence of the bourgeoisie for years, so your allegation that I "seem to have some difficulties" understanding that truism is ludicrous.

If you don't believe it you're not Marxist. Period.

It's not as if Marxism is a living science, capable of incorporating new information into the theory and adapting accordingly, right? It's akin to Christianity, in that 'true believers' must support the notion that every word ever penned by Marx or Engels are eternal truths. Forget the fact they lived in the 19th century and, consequently, didn't have access to the wealth of information which has been accumulated since that time.. No, they were omniscient deities and we mustn't seek to develop Marxism beyond Lenin's mild revisions (which you consider acceptable, for whatever reason). This mentality is precisely why I refer to you as being a dogmatist.

Furthermore, Marxism is primarily a method by which to analyze capitalism. You can utilize Marxism to analyze other modes of production (e.g., feudalism, slavery, primitive communism) and various historical events as well, but it isn't some sort of political agenda. Socialism and communism, on the other hand, are—in that they possess various principles and methods for realization (with some organizations being more practical than others). If the higher stage of communism—as envisioned by Marx, Lenin, or anyone else—cannot be implemented in reality, it isn't reality which is going to change, I assure you.

One thing is not believing that we can arrive there tomorrow, other thing is saying that we will never arrive there.

Perhaps you can explain to me how a system of free access will be capable of generating the requisite information for measuring the social opportunity costs of production; or why people would continue to perform disempowering, but socially necessary, labor. So far, I've not read any satisfactory answers to those questions by anyone. Karl Marx didn't even attempt to address them, as he loathed "recipes for the cook-shops of the future." Personally, I see no reason to believe in things I have no logical reason to suspect will occur. Once again, communism will arise, but not as it has been traditionally conceptualized.

You have laws in tribal societies?

You have rules, which are the same thing functionally speaking.

I hope you are not comparing the laws that we have in modern society with tribal norms.

The only significant difference is that modern societies have more sophisticated methods of law enforcement and humane forms of punishment.

I never saw a commune of anarchists saw I can't tell neither you.

My great-grandfather was an anarcho-syndicalist in Spain prior to and during the Civil War. I've studied the history of Spanish anarchism quite closely as a result of that, and I can unambiguously state that the agrarian communes and urban collectives were not lawless entities.

You see, you have no answer to that. Your perspective is really reactionary. You just revealed yourself. HOLE in the theory.

You revealed a "HOLE" in your brain. I answered your question quite sufficiently and any thinking person would understand that my position cannot be said to be "reactionary." (For future reference, realize that asserting someone is a "reactionary" without explaining why they are isn't an argument).

It's not different from a bourgeoisie nationalist point of view. You only trade one name for another.

You consider working people in a socialist society, democratically deciding to maintain borders, to be indistinguishable from bourgeois nationalism? Was your hero Stalin a "bourgeois nationalist" for maintaining border laws in the Soviet Union? And how exactly do you think you could prevent something like that occurring in your idealized higher stage of communism?

A neo-nazi could give me the same answer as you gave.

And a bourgeois liberal could give me your answer as well. That's doesn't constitute a refutation of what I wrote.

So, Marx didn't have much experience with actual human beings. Otherwise, why he said: "Countries of all countries unite!"?

I'm pretty sure he didn't write "Countries of all countries, unite!", but that's besides the point.. Karl Marx spent the majority of his adult life investigating economic and philosophical questions unrelated to nationality, which is why I don't consult his work when studying the national question. He was, again, correct in stressing that the proletarian revolution is international in scale, but he didn't have an adequate enough understanding of nationality to accurately foresee the manner by which that sentiment would be expressed in the future.

So, now you're calling Marx a delusional?

I'm calling people like yourself, who have access to information far beyond what Marx and Engels could ever dream of, delusional for believing that ethnocultural distinctions will ever completely vanish. Karl Marx was a political economist, not an anthropologist. Try being rational for once and understand the limitations of his analysis.

Dude, in a socialist state you still have economic interests, don't you? Incredible.

Of course economic interests exist, but they're radically different from those of bourgeois states. Why would a socialist state embark on imperial voyages to secure markets abroad when they practice self-management and economic planning domestically? More importantly, why would citizens of a socialist commonwealth vote to send their own children to fight unnecessary wars? Your problem is you analyze socialism through the prism of 20th century state socialism, which was dictatorial and facing a hostile geopolitical climate.

"The dogma of human equality is no part of Communism . . . the formula of Communism: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs', would be nonsense, if abilities were equal."—J. B. S. Haldane

"Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principle of freedom."—Mikhail Bakunin

While it has been amusing to watch Comrade_Joe use this thread as a platform to embarrass himself, I think it has outlived itself usefulness. It is hereby closed.

_________________

De Omnibus Dubitandum

"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."-Friedrich Engels